During the Kennedy administration, the Republican minority in Congress introduced many bills to protect the constitutional rights of blacks, including a comprehensive new civil rights bill. In February 1963, to head off a return by most blacks to the party of Lincoln, Kennedy abruptly decided to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill. Hastily drafted in a single all-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what our Party had introduced into Congress the month before. Over the next several months, Democrat racists in Congress geared up for a protracted filibuster against the civil rights bill. The bill was before a committee in the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumner's 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14th amendment was not sufficient constitutional authorization, so the 1964 version had to be written in such a way as to rely instead on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning.

While this is a fair point to bring up, the problem is that several of the then-Democrats who opposed this and other civil rights laws become Republicans. This leaves Republicans in the uncomfortable position of explaining how and why anti-civil rights congressmen found a home in the Republican party. No, I don't think that this means that the Republicans are racist but I do think that blacks will zero in on this question and the Republicans need to do better than I've seen them do in the past in explaining what happened. Bear in mind that many blacks specifically will not vote Republican because they feel that the Republican party, if not racist, is a home to racists and the large number of anti-civil rights Democrats who fled to the Republican party only reinforces that impression.

"..... the problem is that several of the then-Democrats who opposed this and other civil rights laws become Republicans."

True, but why confuse a great talking point with facts. I'm not sure what the geographic make-up of the for/against Civil Rights were, but I would not be surprised to see a definite Southern opposition to the legislation with the Republican support being from the NE, West coast & midwest (rust belt).

Al Gore's father, a life-long Democrat. filibustered against the bill, as did current Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, whom the Democrats STILL call "the conscience of the Senate." The notion that all those segregationist Democrats becmae Republicans is a fantasy perpetuated by the Doris Kearns Goodwin's of academia.

Ignorance is the Democrats' best friend, so Republicans should welcome any un-distorting of American history.

6
posted on 08/08/2003 7:49:15 AM PDT
by Grand Old Partisan
(You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)

The so-called "civil rights" bill of 1984 was the worst piece of Socialism that has been passed. It tells people what they can and cannot do with their businesses, who to hire and fire, who to rent to, who to sell to and many other communistic dictates. I'm glad that my Senator, John Tower, REPUBLICAN of Texas, participated in the filibuster and voted against this unconstitutional travesty.

The worst piece of Socialism in this coutry was SLAVERY. And don't forget that every person who took up arms against the United States Government in the 1860s was a Democrat, while every Republican remained loyal.

8
posted on 08/08/2003 7:52:17 AM PDT
by Grand Old Partisan
(You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)

Personally I don't know if I'd use the word "credit". This unconstitutional piece of legislation has done incalculable damage to our society:

- It has encouraged tides of illegal immigration. Even if illegals don't benefit directly from this law, they benefit indirectly because employers are more liable to legal action if their workforces don't show enough "diversity". Illegal immigration enables them to make instant diversity. Just add Mexicans!

- For much the same reason, it has made our country more vulnerable to terrorism by giving protection to people from terror-sponsoring societies.

- It has contributed to the breakdown in character in much of society, by making employers and others covered by this Act afraid of using their power of discipline over those who deserve it, for fear that they might be hit with a lawsuit. Instead, they take the easier route with the attitude of "anything goes".

- And, of course, it exacerbates the problem it was supposedly intended to solve. Many of those who fall under its protection know how to play it to their advantage, the result being that these minorities, when they appear in the workforce, are going to wind up less qualified than whites - NOT because they inherently are less qualified, but because the law imposes a de facto selection bias that contributes to that outcome. The upshot is that minorities appear "inferior" in the eyes of whites who don't properly think through the causes, and racism is perpetuated.

10
posted on 08/08/2003 9:40:47 AM PDT
by inquest
(We are NOT the world)

While this is a fair point to bring up, the problem is that several of the then-Democrats who opposed this and other civil rights laws become Republicans.

And most of the Rats that lead the filibuster like Gore, Fullbright and Sheets Byrd stayed Democrat. So isn't it logical that the few segregationists of that era who moved to the GOP (Strom is the only one I can think of) had different reasons than race for becoming Republican?

Vietnam, The Cold War and the tilting of the Democrat leadership to the far left on foreign policy comes to mind as a reason. Reagan was surely not a segregationist --- he supported the Civil Right Act --- but he and many others like him moved to the GOP at the same time.

16
posted on 08/11/2003 6:21:44 AM PDT
by Ditto
( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)

Great reply and one that we shoudl pre-emptively use. I'm simply pointing out that the Democrats will raise the issue of the party switchers and it is accepted by many blacks that the bigots all became Republicans for segregationalist reasons. Your argument is a good one but it is going to be an uphill battle because we'll be fighting a lie that everyone already believes is true.

Your argument is a good one but it is going to be an uphill battle because we'll be fighting a lie that everyone already believes is true.

Very true, but we have a hole card on our side which is basically your screen name. People who are at least minimally open minded in discussing issues, (there's no point in even talking to someone with a closed mind) are willing to question their assumptions. They are also willing to question what Dan and Tom and Peter and the NYT have preached because they have all seen these people twist and distort over the years. Look at the polls on "media credibility" --- they are low across the board. No one really trusts them much. People basically take what they say with a grain of salt and are willing to hear the other side. Give them facts in the form of logical questions and you will see the light come on.

18
posted on 08/11/2003 7:24:19 AM PDT
by Ditto
( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)

Blacks (and, to a lesser extent, other minorities) are the group that we need to get through to. If blacks didn't vote 90%+ Democrat, the Democrats would be in real trouble. Increases in black Republican resgistration are a good sign. Maybe the message is getting through.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.